There is an Intelligent Designer
Options
Comments
-
''wana sema akomax bora yake ni tamu kua manga juu ya sina tabu''
j augmente juste le nombre de mes messages
cuz we don't care -
You're right. Logic does tell us that a painting was done by an artist. BUt people arent art and we're talking about human existence. Not a Picasso. According to your logic human beings are some unknown entity's cosmic art project.If it is logic that we are basing our assumptions on then the T/S may not be off course as we would like to believe.
No one looks at a painting (a masterpiece) and say it was not painted or designed by a painter/designer. It just evolved by coincidence…no logics do not dictate that. Logic tells us it was done on purpose, so it is in creation, including the human species.
No one has denied this.Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed, in other words, universal laws. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.
Tell me which of these sciences has come to the conclusion that we were made by an Alien Being's Magic Powers.
So you're telling me logic tells you that if there is a paper bag being carried away by a gust of wind. That gust of wind was "designed" by an intelligent being sitting on the sidewalk with a magical remote control pushing it down the street? Or that billions of years ago a being created a such thing as wind that would have certain characteristics which enabled it to push light objects, etc etc?Man has nothing to do with the laws of nature or universal law yet they exist and can be manipulated and studied and used to our benefit; Logic dictates that if there are laws and principles, which we can understand, they must have been designed.
Logic tells you that the Earth rotates because an intelligent being "designed" the galaxy so that gravitational forces would make it spin?
You are forgetting that humans gave things a definition. You speak of LAWS and DESIGN as if those words existed before humans made them. As if there was a magical man in the sky that created all things and said, "LAW #1...gravity keeps masses together.......LAW #2...the speed of light shall be 300k/s."
Lastly all beings are intelligent. Just because you're more intelligent than other animals doesnt make you a divine creation. That's kind of arrogant dont you think? "Man was made by an all-powerful ? And how do I know this? Cuz we the smartest muthafukkas in this ? ."Therefore the laws of creation must have the same divine origin as the intelligent creature called human
THinking you are the product of a divine entity because you can do long division and monkey's cant isnt very convincing. Oh and BTW. I'm not even saying there is no ? . Im not an athiest. Im saying you Intelligent Design weirdos need to do a better job plugging the thousand holes in your points before you are taken seriously. -
I friggin love this ? !!!!!!
-
Hey Judah.
There's a giant pink elephant in your apartment Only I can see the elephant. Dont worry. If you ask the invisible pink elephant in your heart he'll reveal himself to you. But you have to truly believe. The invisible pink elephant created you and also knitted your kufi.
REFUTE MY THEORY.
OK.....Have you realized you cant yet? GOOD. Why cant you? Because it's ? ridiculous thats why!!! Sorry but you cant just say some asnine ? and expect to be taken seriously. There was nothing to refute. THe premise itself was flawed. You need a logical and reasonable premise in order to rebut reasonably. Well....smart people do at least. Maybe not you.
once again, very witty but not at all relevant. but ooooh, you really checked me. you mentioned something smart people do then u implied that i do the opposite making me not smart by default. bravo! that was masterful. guess einstein was stupid too..
"“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire”
-The Religiousness of Science ( from collection of Einstein essays in English entitled "The World As I See It" )
also:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no ? . But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward ? ."
- Einstein: A Life , p. 186. by D. Brian
So who's stupid? You or Einstein? -
science sans conscience n est que ruine de l âme
comparaison n est pas raison
translation
u ain't saying nothing -
If you cant see how a point must be reasonable in the first place before it is refuted logically then I need not read past the quoted.once again, very witty but not at all relevant
U dont tell a Wesley Snipes he really an albino in his sleep but only u can see it and then look at him like, "prove me wrong ? ."
HE CANT...its foolish. -
i just wanna kno what happened to t/s...is he on a milk carton somewhere?
-
once again, very witty but not at all relevant. but ooooh, you really checked me. you mentioned something smart people do then u implied that i do the opposite making me not smart by default. bravo! that was masterful. guess einstein was stupid too..
"“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire”
-The Religiousness of Science ( from collection of Einstein essays in English entitled "The World As I See It" )
also:
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no ? . But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward ? ."
- Einstein: A Life , p. 186. by D. Brian
So who's stupid? You or Einstein?
You dont want to bring Einstein into this...cuz what he says about "? " isnt going to be pretty.
I do not believe in a personal ? and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's ? who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a ? who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) -
PLASTIC RULES wrote: »Human beings are complex biological organisms, and when the slightest thing goes wrong, it can result in disaster, causing genetic malfunctions that result humans lacking the necessary mental and physical capacity to survive long enough to procreate. Humanity did not develop their advanced mental capacities through a long process of evolution and natural selection, because we would have been eliminated before we were able to evolve to such a level. Why have no other organisms on Earth developed the specific traits inherent to being human? Because the amount of time needed to possibly achieve such a complex organism through such methods is longer than the lifespan of our planet and species.
If you're going to use ? to explain the complexity of life on Earth, you still have to come up with an explanation for the even more complicated being that created life on Earth.
There are many different ways to survive. Being fast runners helped the ancestors of modern day cheetahs to survive, being able to fly helped the ancestors of modern day birds to survive, being highly intelligent and social helped our ancestors to survive and propagate those same intelligence/sociality enabling genes.
Taxonomic classifications are arbitrary but the earliest animals that we would consider to be human lived around 2 million years ago (? sapiens specifically are around 200 000 years old). Life on Earth has been evolving for 3/3.5 billion years. That's a long time.causing genetic malfunctions that result humans lacking the necessary mental and physical capacity to survive long enough to procreate.
This is exactly why humans did "develop their advanced mental capacities through a long process of evolution and natural selection" -
If you cant see how a point must be reasonable in the first place before it is refuted logically then I need not read past the quoted.
U dont tell a Wesley Snipes he really an albino in his sleep but only u can see it and then look at him like, "prove me wrong ? ."
HE CANT...its foolish.
lol. of course you need not read past the quoted. acknowledging what I'm saying in entirety makes you look dumb. I get it and I aint mad at ya...
BUT
what makes your subjective definition of what is reasonable so much better than mine, plastic's or Einstein's? how many wack ass hypothetical comparisons are you going to type before you actually address the subject? -
Praise ? that there are still people on His earth that have the mental capacity to understand that there is a creator. ? bless you T/S. May ? continue to lead you down the path that leads to Him.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no ? ." Psalm 14:1 -
If you're going to use ? to explain the complexity of life on Earth, you still have to come up with an explanation for the even more complicated being that created life on Earth.
There are many different ways to survive. Being fast runners helped the ancestors of modern day cheetahs to survive, being able to fly helped the ancestors of modern day birds to survive, being highly intelligent and social helped our ancestors to survive and propagate those same intelligence/sociality enabling genes.
Taxonomic classifications are arbitrary but the earliest animals that we would consider to be human lived around 2 million years ago (? sapiens specifically are around 200 000 years old). Life on Earth has been evolving for 3/3.5 billion years. That's a long time.
This is exactly why humans did "develop their advanced mental capacities through a long process of evolution and natural selection"
LOL. You over here throwing out numbers like you were there to witness such events. Let me ask you this, better yet can you answer this question posed by ? ? If you can, I will accept the dates you and the scientific community continually throw out.
"4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of ? shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7
Don't worry. I'm waiting...................... -
Again, let us try to reason, we have agreed that man does not create the laws of the universe, ok…Since man cannot make principles, from where did he gain knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of planets and stars that is so immensely distant from him?
It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to man. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle upon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring of this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the principles of science applied practically. The man who proportions the several parts of a plane uses the same scientific principles as if he had the power of constructing a universe.
It is in that logic that we arrive at a creator, that invisible law of creation by which all the component parts of the immense machine of the universe have influence upon each other, and act in motional unison together, without any apparent contact, and to which man has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he supplies the place of that law by the humble imitation of wheels, wings, cogs and gears. All the parts of man's microcosm must be visibly to touch, but that does not take away the existence of a manipulator of infinite sub particles that are invisible to us. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Praise ? that there are still people on His earth that have the mental capacity to understand that there is a creator. ? bless you T/S. May ? continue to lead you down the path that leads to Him.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no ? ." Psalm 14:1
the thread starter's post is not in support of the "white-beard" ? that is portrayed in the bible, of which you are an avid fan. The creator is above the human traits and characteristics that is bestowed on him by religious fanatics. We are saying that you see the true nature of the creator in his creations...logical and have consits of mathematical principles. -
Again, let us try to reason, we have agreed that man does not create the laws of the universe, ok…Since man cannot make principles, from where did he gain knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of planets and stars that is so immensely distant from him?
Through observation, and reproduction of the observations...ie: Science.It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to man. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle upon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring of this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the principles of science applied practically. The man who proportions the several parts of a plane uses the same scientific principles as if he had the power of constructing a universe.
No, it is man that has taught himself this through observation and reproduction. The rest of this is irrelevantIt is in that logic that we arrive at a creator, that invisible law of creation by which all the component parts of the immense machine of the universe have influence upon each other, and act in motional unison together, without any apparent contact, and to which man has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he supplies the place of that law by the humble imitation of wheels, wings, cogs and gears. All the parts of man's microcosm must be visibly to touch, but that does not take away the existence of a manipulator of infinite sub particles that are invisible to us.
Assuming this nonsense is true...then who created the creator? -
Through observation, and reproduction of the observations...ie: Science.
No, it is man that has taught himself this through observation and reproduction. The rest of this is irrelevant
Assuming this nonsense is true...then who created the creator?
for everything there is a beginning...even with your theory. -
this thread is on a fast track to nowhere.
-
for everything there is a beginning...even with your theory.
So something created the creator and so on and so forth. -
It is from the study of the true creations that all our knowledge of science is derived; and it is from that knowledge that all the arts have originated.
The Almighty lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited his creation, man…to study and imitate. It is as if he had said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call ours, "I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to All, to be kind and tolerant to each other."
Of what use is it, unless to teach us something, that the rest of the universe exists? That we are endowed with the knowledge of understanding and seeing, even to an incomprehensible distance in the sky, an immensity of worlds revolving in the ocean of space? Or of what use is it that this immensity of worlds is visible to man? What has man to do with the Pleiades, with Orion, with Sirius, with the star he calls the north star, with the moving orbs he has named Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc.
This is there to be a learning tool so we can know and understand creation and eventually our Creator. -
So something created the creator and so on and so forth.
A Beginning means it started from an initial source...an awareness. That is more logical than ..? !.. everthing appeared by magic. -
You dont want to bring Einstein into this...cuz what he says about "? " isnt going to be pretty.
I do not believe in a personal ? and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's ? who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a ? who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
okay. those quotes would be problematic for me if i was a christian but i'm not so they aren't. im not into the whole anthropomorphic personal ? thing. -
can you answer this question posed by ? ?
How do you know that the question has been posed by ? ? -
A Beginning means it started from an initial source...an awareness. That is more logical than ..? !.. everthing appeared by magic.
You said for EVERYTHING there is a beginning...so what came before the initial source, the awareness?? -
You said for EVERYTHING there is a beginning...so what came before the initial source, the awareness??
The end of the previos universe and existence... -
Experimentation, studying, trail and error, theorizing, hypothesizing, and over the course of thousands of years coming to a conclusion based on logic and reason. ACADEMIA.Again, let us try to reason,we have agreed that man does not create the laws of the universe, ok…Since man cannot make principles, from where did he gain knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of planets and stars that is so immensely distant from him?
So the universe is a living thing that teaches us things?It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to man.
OK. YOu've proved airplanes have intelligent designers. BUt humans make tools. Not living things. HUmans make inanimate objects. Hell scientists apparently have made actually living organisms in labs. So are we divine now since we've learned to "create" life?That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle upon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring of this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the principles of science applied practically. The man who proportions the several parts of a plane uses the same scientific principles as if he had the power of constructing a universe.
So you think the universe is a machine? (I know not to take that literally so dont think i misunderstood u). If u think the universe is a "machine" thats a whole other subject though lol
It is in that logic that we arrive at a creator, that invisible law of creation by which all the component parts of the immense machine of the universe have influence upon each other,
Actually all things are technically connected since all things are made of one thing. U break all those things down and its the same ? at the core.and act in motional unison together, without any apparent contact,
OK go back to the bolded. You used the words "Invisible law of creation." So once again your theory boils down to "Its so amazing how the universe works that it must be made by a ? ." Sorry...that's not good enough.and to which man has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he supplies the place of that law by the humble imitation of wheels, wings, cogs and gears. All the parts of man's microcosm must be visibly to touch, but that does not take away the existence of a manipulator of infinite sub particles that are invisible to us.
YOu sound like the Ancient Indians who saw the Silver Amour Chest plates of Cortez and his army and said, "WOW THEY MUST BE GODS!" No man. THey're just human beings with complex technology. NOt divine entities. U simply think they are divine because you have yet to understand them.
